11 ms·

Tesla will soon downgrade software on the entry-level Model 3

104 points by mbreese 7y ago

OJFord 7y ago
> Customers might also lose access to Tesla's onboard music streaming service and heated seats, among other upgrades, though they'll have to wait until the software lock comes out to know which ones they're losing for sure. Heated seats disabled in software?!
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  My goodness! Next you’ll tell me you’re paying more for more GHz from the same processor just because of QA/bin sorting! /s Anyway, price differentiation without a hardware delta is how you meet your margin forecasts. Legitimate business strategy.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Perhaps anyway.
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    That's a poor analogy; when you pay more for a processor that's more highly binned, you are actually getting something physically superior. Tesla bins their motors (or did at one point). If you're going to do the sarcastic reply thing, at least make it insightful. Or funny.
    - tntn 7y ago
      > actually getting something physically superior Sometimes, sometimes not. What you are getting is a chip that passed more rigorous tests. That the lower end products have (or would have) failed those tests is not guaranteed. Companies can and do sell identical silicon as less capable products.
      - reitzensteinm 7y ago
        Yes, sometimes the yields are too good and there are an overabundance of chips that can be sold as high end. Pentiums with cache defects are sold as Celerons, but in a pinch, a Pentium might be sold as a Celeron. Intel at one stage dipped their toes in the water of what would be a close analogy; your chip comes with half of its cache software disabled, and you pay $50 to unlock it. They stopped pretty quickly, but I don't think it was from the inevitable tech community backlash. It was that it economically made no sense at Intel's scale - the alternative was to fab a new line of chips with less cache to start with. https://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/ https://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50...
    - alkonaut 7y ago
      Swap the analogy around. A cpu manufacturer develops a quadcore cpu then sells it for $1k but also sells a 2core cpu with 2 fully functional cores disabled for $500. This is a valid business strategy. One could imagine them offering the 2-core buyers a limited trial of the 4-core version to try to upsell them on a 4-core. That’s what Tesla did.
      - reitzensteinm 7y ago
        You could imagine it, but that's not what actually happens! There are cases where a higher spec product is sold as a lower spec in the CPU world, but there are no lasting situations where every single lower spec product could have been sold as higher. For the analogy to fit, that would have to be the situation. It's not. I'm not arguing that Tesla is doing anything wrong, just that you can't point to CPUs to justify it.
        reitzensteinm 7y ago
        If you or anyone else reading this doubts what I'm saying, the statistics are plain as day on Silicon Lottery. Most SKUs can be overclocked, but there is no case where a higher binning isn't superior. https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
        alkonaut 7y ago
        I'm not saying it happens a lot. Or that it ever happened in a sustainable way for CPU's. I'm saying it's a valid business strategy that can happen and does happen for many many products. The CPU was just an analogy I thought would be working for this particular site. It may be that the best actually occurring example is tooth brushes or bicycles, I don't know.
        reitzensteinm 7y ago
        Parent was pointing to a real world analogous situation which we don't get upset about, and accusing OP of hypocrisy. But it was a flawed argument, because CPU binning is not at all like Tesla software limiting battery packs. It's totally valid to be upset about one but not the other (personally I'm fine with both). You coming up with any sort of theoretical scenario to continue the analogy doesn't counter my argument or boost theirs. We don't need help understanding what Tesla is doing.
- Whatarethese 7y ago
  I got 5% more power on in a software update. Pretty awesome.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    Doesn't help much with the 10% reduced range.
- userbinator 7y ago
  What's next, seats and doors disabled in software? "The car has detected someone sitting in the passenger seat, but you haven't paid for that option, so the car will refuse to move." or "the rear doors cannot be opened, because you've only paid for the front door." WTF.
  - emiliobumachar 7y ago
    Well, how big is the discount for single riders?
skunkworker 7y ago
The title feels like partially clickbait, customers who paid for the standard range have been getting the extended range for free and soon this will be software locked. "Your Model 3 will soon receive new software that matches the Model 3 Standard Range configuration you ordered. As we communicated in April, this includes a limited range of 220 miles, and the removal of several software features. To continue experiencing the extended range, faster acceleration and Autopilot features of Model Standard Range Plus, schedule a service appointment through your Tesla app."
- pdxww 7y ago
  Regardless, this is a bad PR and they are losing potential customers. No one wants their car to be trimmed down just because the manufactures chose so. No, it doesn't matter what's written in the fine print.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
RyanShook 7y ago
No better way to alienate customers than make them pay for features they already had access to.
- Whatarethese 7y ago
  But they got features they didn't pay for in the first place?
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    In terms of UX, I'd argue shipping the cars software locked in the first place would have been strictly superior to shipping SR+ and downgrading it after the fact. The rational part of your brain understands why, but I think some pretty fundamental loss aversion emotions kick in when a product you own is downgraded, even if you chose not to pay for the extra features. Of course, that may be exactly what Tesla is banking on, considering you can just get your credit card out to get it back. I wouldn't be surprised if future SR models come with a one month trial even now the downgrade has been developed. Parent has a point, IMO, and your reply doesn't really address it.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
      They needed some time to implement the software locking. So it was a choice between delaying delivery by a few weeks vs delivering with extra features and turning them off later.
gmueckl 7y ago
So the trial period for the full version is over. Enjoy the features included in the standard license. I get market segmentation and having optional features in a car. But most car companies don't actually integrate a seat heater if you didn't order one. Lugging the weight of the extra hardware for these features around but being blocked from using them at all feels wromg to me.
- sliken 7y ago
  I can't talk percentages. But it's pretty common for most of the parts needed for an optional feature to be included. Things like wiring harneses for optional subwoofers, foglights, etc. Heating pads start around $15.00 on amazon, seems easy to believe it's cheaper to make only seats with heating integrated instead of making two part numbers, doubling the overhead for seat inventory, make the assembly line more complex, making the order system more complex, documentation, testing, doubling the overhead for car inventory, handling additional order complexity etc.
  - SN76477 7y ago
    for all we know Tesla want to make on demand style manufacturing of vehicles possible.
    - koala_man 7y ago
      Car micropayments? "Don't freeze your butt off! Get an hour of warm seats for just $1.99"
      - AtHeartEngineer 7y ago
        This is really intriguing to think about, black mirror season 6? (Haven't watched 5 yet, no spoilers)
        dx7tnt 7y ago
        Spoiler alert: compared to the other seasons, these ones are pretty crap and unengaging.
gumby 7y ago
This reminds me of IBM which would rent the same hardware and then charge you for "performance upgrades" which were typically provided as jumpers.
- colanderman 7y ago
  That the hardware was rented makes the practice feel less egregious to me. You are after all essentially paying for a service when renting. But paying someone to unlock physical functionality of a device which you own… that feels like crossing the line toed by IBM's practice (and that of others mentioned in comments such as Intel).
wanderer2323 7y ago
Feels really weird. These are the earliest customers for Model 3, wouldn't it be good & cheap PR for Tesla to say "these customers got more than they paid for, but we'll 'grandfather' them into the perks"? I would expect the positive EV (expected value) on the 'grandfather' option to be obvious, unless Tesla is really strapped for cash.
- sliken 7y ago
  These are not the earliest customers of the model 3. These are the ones that waited an extra year or so for the cheapest model. They were informed about the features they would get, but ended up with free, but temporary upgrades.
  - p1esk 7y ago
    Did the earliest customer get something that others didn't? But yeah, Tesla is tight on cash these days...
    - sliken 7y ago
      Yes, free supercharging for one. But as Tesla matures and starts entering markets with lower profit margins, things need to be more cost efficient. I don't think of Tesla being hard on cash, just that they are pouring every $ they have into expansion. They could just slow down and being profitable would be much easier. Personally I'd slow growth and take out less loans, but they would slow down the transformation of the automobile industry from ICE to electric. It does seem to be working, with the competition continuing to claims "You can't make a competitive electric car", then "you can't make a competitive luxury sedan", then "you can't make a small sedan at a lower price point". Now pretty much the entire industry is chasing Tesla. Sure now there's some competition from Chevy (the bolt), Jaguar (the i-pace), Audi (e-tron), Mercedes, Porsche, and many others. None particularly competitive... yet. Even if Tesla implodes tomorrow, they have pushed the market to an amazing degree. Personally I'm most impressed with the model 3 performance. Small, fun, fast, tons of storage room, very efficient, and often wins against a BMW M3, not just at 0-60 (a strong point of electric cars), but also on the track. Electric cars get rid of pretty much all the compromises of a sports sedan. No loss of storage space with the transmission hump that divides the car in two. No increased friction and substantial weight increase for AWD. No huge hood to contain a large engine. No terrible gas mpg. Low center of gravity means no punishing suspension to try to keep the car from rolling in the corners. No loud noises from performance oriented tires, engines, and exhausts. Basically you can get a practical every day driver that matches the best BMW on the track.
m463 7y ago
The question I have is: Were these features accidentally turned on, or were they on "free trial"? I drove a rental model s once, and it had the autopilot features turned on like navigate on autopilot, but there was a warning "Trial period ends in 23 days" or something like that.
- kjksf 7y ago
  Neither. Tesla sold those cars before they finished the software that enforces the limits. From now on this will be in the car from the beginning.
zaroth 7y ago
I’m blanking on the term d’art, but I see this similar to the common practice of blocking out features in an MVP where you let users click on things that aren’t implemented yet in order to measure which features you should actually go and build next. It’s a neat way to quickly get real-world data on what people will pay for and what features they want. The alternative would have been waiting to ship these customers their new cars until the software was ready. Shipping it early with the explicit notice that eventually the software will arrive which will limit access properly is a win-win for everyone. Customers get their new car sooner, they get free access to a bunch of features they didn’t pay for, and the option to upgrade is always there if they do want it in the future. Clearly these owners are getting a software upgrade, which is implementing new software checks to provide the correct functionality as ordered based on their SKU. In my past company we also shipped features to customers without all the software limits enforced in firmware in order to get the build out to the field. I imagine it’s a fairly common practice, as we tend to code those features last, as nothing depends on them, and you can always ship without them when the sales guy is selling based on the price sheet, not whether the software actually implements the check. As long as customers don’t start to believe the check will never actually ship, the bug sat Unassigned.
- Deimorz 7y ago
  > I’m blanking on the term d’art, but I see this similar to the common practice of blocking out features in an MVP where you let users click on things that aren’t implemented yet in order to measure which features you should actually go and build next. I've seen that called "fake door" or "painted door" tests.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  >Clearly these owners are getting a software upgrade, which is implementing new software checks to provide the correct functionality as ordered based on their SKU. that is some pretty absurd spin
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Hardly; it precisely describes what is occurring. Calling it a downgrade seems to me to be the absurd spin. It's clearly not a downgrade, as the feature checks weren't even implemented in the previous versions. I understand what the headline is trying to say, but it's a total misnomer to call it a downgrade.
bgorman 7y ago
How can the extended range be controlled by a software feature? For me it is seems deeply unethical to limit the how long a mechanical device can operate via software. Imagine a printer that had a software limit of only printing 5 pages at a time.
- tntn 7y ago
  What do you find deeply unethical about it? I don't care how it's implemented - if it works as advertised and I decide to buy it for a given cost, seems like an ok deal. Said printer would not be good, I would not buy it. EDIT: FWIW, there is a metric ton of software and firmware that is crucial to achieve the advertised range. So if it makes you feel better you can think of it as not the mechanical product operating differently, just the software product.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    It’s at the very least unethical in the environmental sense of wasting natural resources on physical objects that can’t be used and are wasted because of contractual terms. It’s also unethical if you believe in a “right to repair” because it creates financial incentives for the enforcement of laws and contracts that make “right to repair” impossible.
    - jzoch 7y ago
      keeping "repair" well-scoped is important in maintaining the right and saying Tesla is in the wrong here seems silly. You aren't repairing your car if you enable features you didnt pay for. You should gladly by this product thats artificially limited since the cost to enable that new feature is theoretically lower and faster with less chance of things going wrong. They are able to offer you a better product with more price points by engaging in software-gating. If they did not do this it would be difficult to maintain so many different SKU's and youd wait longer to get your car. Servicing it would be more work and youd be less satisfied.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
userbinator 7y ago
How long until someone finds a hack...? This is one of the reasons I really don't like "software defined cars"... that you don't really own.
- SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
  If you brick a car and you can't convince Tesla that you were doing legitimate security research, they will refuse to reflash it. That's if they don't effectively brick it for you by blocking your VIN from getting parts and firmware updates when a future update detects unexpected features being used. Hacking these cars is an expensive and risky endeavor compared to just coughing up the money for the extra features.
  - p1esk 7y ago
    But this is hacker news, isn't it? What you said is equally true about the iphone, yet people did hack it...
    - userbinator 7y ago
      There are also apparently farmers hacking the firmware on their equipment, which costs many times more than the most expensive Tesla: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994 No one who hacks expects the manufacturer to help or even agree.
      - oska 7y ago
        I'm sympathetic to farmers who hack their John Deere tractors which they only use on private land. I'm much less sympathetic to people who hack the software of cars they drive on public roads.
        whenchamenia 7y ago
        All my 7 cars are hacked. Sorry you feel that way.
dhuramas 7y ago
Lots of hate in the comments- but I feel this is a good thing. I think of it as my free trial to JetBrains IDE expiring - yeah it sucks. But I got what I paid for(or didn't pay for)- and it was good while it lasted. Besides they had a clear communication about the matter- it's not as if the customers had the rug pulled off their feet. They have been informed well in advance.
Urgo 7y ago
Really not sure why everyone is up in arms over this. The person buying the car knows exactly what they are buying when they order it. They just got some upgrades for free that they didn't pay for to try for a little bit. I think its great that Tesla includes them and is able to unlock them via software. The alternative is if you bought the low end car and later decided to upgrade you'd have to bring your car in, they'd have to tear apart seats/etc to upgrade the hardware, remove an old battery to put in a new one, etc. The system as it stands now may seem a little weird that you actually have hardware you didn't pay for but it's not unlike upgrading to get more features on some other service. The fact of the matter again is the people who bought the cars after this update will get exactly what they paid for. If they want the upgraded version they could have either bought it from the start, or they can still upgrade.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  It just feels bad. The comments reflect that and there will be more in the future. It'll make the company look like some game company that sells DLC. It's bad marketing.
  - Urgo 7y ago
    It only feels bad because you (not saying you, but you know what I mean) thought you were getting away with getting something for free you didn't pay for and it's being taken back.
    - Krasnol 7y ago
      Nah, it feels back because you had something that will be taken away from you. They shouldn't have given it to the people in the first place.
      - Urgo 7y ago
        I'm with you on that. Ideally it shouldn't have been given at all. I just don't see any issue with Tesla updating things to match what the customer paid for. And again, the Tesla website is super easy to use and they detail everything. You know EXACTLY what you are ordering when you order it. I may be bummed if I got some free extras if I was one of these customers but I'd be totally fine if the extras went away since I hadn't paid for them. I'm wondering if when the customers were handed the keys though if Tesla let them know about this "free trial" of sorts.
kjksf 7y ago
This wasn't Tesla's plan from the beginning. This is the history of how that happened. In 2016 Tesla announced Model 3 and took a risk by pre-announcing that the price will start at $35. In late 2017 they started making the cars and until early 2019 they were only making the more expensive Long Range trim at $50k+. Sometime late 2018 / early 2019 they introduced a Medium Range trim, which was Long Range with smaller batter for $40-something k. This trim is no longer available (replaced by SR+) Around march 2019, after hard-core cost-cutting, they introduced the base models as $35 SR (Standard Range) and $37.5 SR+ (Standard Range plus). Compared to original plans SR/SR+ was better in that it included the panoramic glass sunroof. The SR+ was available immediately but SR had a 4-6 month lead time, presumably so that Tesla can improve production / operational efficiency enough so that they can make SR trim at a profit. According to Tesla, few people were ordering SR so they decided to scrap that trim. That makes sense because the fewer variants they have to make, the better they can optimize the production process and the cheaper it is to make the cars. To fulfill those SR orders they decided to give people SR+ trim and limit features in software. It took them a while to implement those limits hence for a while people who ordered SR were able to drive SR+ without the limits. This is not the end of story. Soon after they decided to make $3k AutoPilot a standard feature and bumped the price by $2k. After that they bumped the price by additional $400, presumably to offset the cost of Trump's tarrifs. And that's where we are today. Tesla just rolls with the punches. Making the cheapest version be a software-limited wasn't the original plan but it's a reasonable decision given how things progressed. I think it's safe to say that at some point in the future Tesla will lower the price if their production capacity outstrips the supply and they manage to further improve operational efficiency.
- patrick5415 7y ago
  Honestly, nobody(except the fanbois) cares about the story or Tesla’s original intention. All that matters is what they are actually doing. And what they’re actually doing is skeevy.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Reading the parent makes it sound exceptionally skeevy. I tend to distrust a company that will spend money to make sure that their customers 'don't get something for free' when the cost is already sunk.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dheera 7y ago
How is range determined by software? Isn't that purely a function of how many amp hours of battery you have?
- rcw4256 7y ago
  It's artificially capped in software.
  - dheera 7y ago
    That's just wrong. If you own a physical resource, such as a lithium battery, you should be able to use it to its full potential. If they want to sell lower-range cars they should just load them with smaller batteries, and have the upgrade be the battery pack, not the software. Gas cars don't do that. Whatever gas you put in, you can use. These kind of shenanigans only make people love gas cars more, which is honestly not in Tesla's best interest if they want to increase adoption.
    - aetherspawn 7y ago
      One reason they may have done this is because there was a time when they were looking at battery swapping. Standard batteries (with just software limiting) between all M3s would make this logistically so much easier.
      - dheera 7y ago
        Logistically fine, but if it makes financial sense to even manufacture and ship full sized batteries to everyone, you might as well let people use them. Otherwise it's purely wasteful, which contradicts their first principles of existence as a company to have unused and will-never-be-used lithium cells being trucked around by thousands of cars the country. Software upgrades should only provide better software, not unlock precious resources that would otherwise be wasted. Also, writing software to deliberately cripple hardware is counterproductive to advancement of technology. It also highly incentivizes people to reverse engineer your system, hack your system, unsubscribe themselves from updates, and IMO they have every right to do so. It would be in your best interest to NOT incentivize this type of behavior. If I buy 5 batteries from you, you have no right to walk into my house, install a safe, and lock up 1 of them for a ransom, which is exactly what they are doing. It's childish at best and unethical at worst. If you did that, I will destroy the safe and recover the 5th battery. It's my property that I purchased and I have the right to use it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notaki 7y ago
However you feel about it, the bigger point is that none of big auto could do this even if they wanted to
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dehrmann 7y ago
This is a case where Tesla would be better off owning up to its failures. They shipped a product slightly better than customers ordered. That's on them, especially when they're doing the downgrade a year+ later. Imagine if a dealership came back after a year and told you "actually, you didn't pay for the package with the heated seats." Not sure what Tesla PR was thinking on this one, especially when the cost (but not opportunity cost) is $10 per month for the music. All I've got is that Tesla's looking between the cushions for cash.
- drusepth 7y ago
  If I didn't pay for it, I'd pretty much just think, "Dang, that was nice while I had it." The biggest downside would be having to take your car into wherever they'd remove the heated seats at. Being able to negate that inconvenience entirely with a software update brings me back to "oh man, that was nice while I had it. I guess I don't anymore."
- disillusioned 7y ago
  How would this be different from, say, a SaaS tool provider realizing I was being charged for their "basic" plan I signed up for, while inadvertently receiving their "premium" plan, and emailing me to inform me they've noticed the error and are correcting it?
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    The main difference is the sense of possession you get with something you paid a one-time fee for. The -aaS model is a fee for service model, so you expect to be billed accordingly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
CriticalCathed 7y ago
This is the first thing I've seen Tesla do that was shitty with regard to customers. Tarnishes their image. Something about selling someone a car with all of the physical hardware required for something and then locking it out sometime after the sale using software seriously bothers me. Who owns the car, really? Is it Tesla or is it me? Stupid move. They stand to gain almost no money from this. I may be ignorant about Tesla's business practices if there's worse. I also own a Model S not a 3.
- sudhirj 7y ago
  It's unfair not to do it - there are customers who paid extra for the upgrade, it's not fair to give it to everyone for free, but a trial period seems reasonable.
  - CriticalCathed 7y ago
    The thing is it was not a trial period. There already exists trial periods in Tesla vehicles. They're explicit and give you time remaining. You know exactly what is happening. Instead, what happened is Tesla couldn't provide the configuration of cars that people wanted because it wasn't economical for them to do so. So instead they sent them another model of the vehicle with different hardware. It was a stop gap solution. It appears that many people were unaware either by their own lack of attention, or because they were mislead, or because Tesla didn't make it clear enough what was happening. So: 1. Tesla offered to sell a product. 2. People bought the product. 3. Tesla realized it was not economical to sell the product. 4. Tesla decided not to manufacture the product that they offered. 5. Tesla gave the customers a different product in order to retain the sale rather than cancel the orders. (Even to the degree that the sales documentation refers to the product as SR+ and not SR.) 6. Months pass. 7. Tesla develops software that will after-the-fact modify the product that customers were provided. Tesla is part and parcel of the problem here. This "it's not fair" rings hollow to me.
    - sliken 7y ago
      Tesla could have made customers wait, cancel the product, and upsell them.... which would be quite unpopular. Instead they told users, we can sell you a better car today, but then at some point it will behave just like the car you ordered. Seems less than idea, but seems like Tesla made the best of the situation. The problem is they brought out two cars at $35k and $40k and tried to predict how many people would take both options. Turns out way more people took the nav, traffic, streaming audio, better range/battery etc. So much so that it wasn't worth making a custom car for the few people that bought the $35k model. So instead of cancelling orders they decided to software limit the $35k car, and people got what they ordered with a bonus till the software got updated.
steelframe 7y ago
For those who haven't had a chance to read it yet, Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read" from 1997: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html There are some striking thematic parallels with the current state of automotive technology -- in particular Tesla.
- userbinator 7y ago
  Cory Doctorow's "Car Wars" is also very relevant: http://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/car-wars http://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/car-wars
- googlemike 7y ago
  Stallman is a cooky old loon.
  - prepend 7y ago
    This is an unusual comment and raised my Sunday morning curiosity. Was he a loon in 1997 when the linked to article was published? Do you post this comment any time Stallman is mentioned? If so, are there others on your autoinsult list? Or is there a particular reason it’s important here to insult Stallman?
yarg 7y ago
I'm not sure how this will go down in America, but in New Zealand at least I believe that this will breach the Consumer Guarantees Act. Edit: there's a clause in the act that says once the buyer owns the product, they own the product. I believe that this change would breach that clause. I believe that the Model 3 has not yet shipped - so this isn't a retroactive downgrade, and the act might not apply.
- drusepth 7y ago
  How would Teslas get any updates in New Zealand if updates breach CGA?
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Presumably software updates that improve stuff/add features are allowed, but not if they make things worse. E.g. VW is being sued in Germany because their "removed dieselgate software" update makes fuel economy worse than advertised. It might fix the emissions to as advertised, but the owners aren't getting better emissions as promised, because the promise was a lie. If that is the case for NZ Teslas, a cute hack would be to trick the car to think it is in New Zealand. Calling the Ukrainian hackers... (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farme...)
    - yarg 7y ago
      Good luck doing that without breaking mapping.
sudhirj 7y ago
There was a tweet by pg that Tesla is really a software company - that seems to be playing out more and more. They're basically making the car hardware only for sake of vertical integration, same as with Apple's phones. Both companies are also developing chips for the same reasons, with the same revolving door of employees as well. If this perspective normalizes it's quite possible that we'll see cars that offer in-app upgrades / features on subscription as well. You could rent extended range for just your trips, and Tesla has already been known to temporarily enable it for everyone in the case of emergencies.
- carlmr 7y ago
  Putting unnecessary hardware in cars may be costly, which is why traditional car companies don't do this, or at least rarely do this. At the same time Tesla doesn't produce enough cars to make it worthwhile to make the production process that flexible. There are costs associated with having different parts to manage and streamlining your assembly line to handle it. Additionally you have to develop, test, produce these additional parts which also costs money. If they become one of the big car manufacturers at some point it will become worth it to specialize the hardware more. Right now software is easier and cheaper.
lasky 7y ago
happily driving my gas guzzling “on-prem, perpetually licensed source” model of ownership instead of dealing with that bs.
brianobush 7y ago
So you have seat heating elements, but software has disabled them? Nice. Feels like a multi-core processor with half of the processors disabled.
prepend 7y ago
I recently bought a car and seriously considered a Tesla, but ended up buying another. At first my thinking was about the support costs and maintenance (cheaper service vs absurdly expensive accident repairs), but what did it for me was this kind of stuff. Shipping a car with heated seats but only enabling them if they are paid for is very annoying. And not allowing me to write software for my own car is annoying. I’ve always disliked DLC and seeing it move into other areas turns me off. Lots of people don’t mind this, but I think it’s unethical to ship hardware that is enabled by software that is forbidden for the owner to modify.
- aetherspawn 7y ago
  What other brand of car can you write software for?
  - prepend 7y ago
    Twenty years ago I was writing EEPROM stuff for my civic to increase hp. I don’t know any car with an SDK, but most cars sold allow aftermarket software changes.
    - aetherspawn 7y ago
      Right, but if you broke it then Honda wouldn’t reflash it for free. And they don’t give you EEPROM flashing cables and SDK documentation. So is there really a tangible difference? I’d be surprised if Honda provided you with anything beyond what Tesla provides (ie nothing).
      - prepend 7y ago
        You kept the original eeprom and put it back in for service. This is not possible in a Tesla because of the way they designed connectivity. I’m not asking for an SDK and official support, I’m just asking for it to be allowed. Tesla actively prevents this, Honda doesn’t.
- todd3834 7y ago
gnicholas 7y ago
If they can remove the feature via an OTA update, why do you have to go into a service station to get the features back?
- Urgo 7y ago
  Guessing its due to the features of the car being locked into some part of memory that can not be updated over the air and bringing it in will allow them to update it so future OTA updates will give the correct update. Basically change the car's version from being a M3 SR to M3 SR+
telltruth 7y ago
Tesla seems to be desperate for cash flow, any cash flow. First they shutdown stores and now they are trying to squeeze out existing customers. Looks like Musk called meeting with top leaders and charged them to find any way whatsoever to get extra cash.
- x38iq84n 7y ago
  Yeah, cash flow is a bitch that does not care about market cap or stock price. Something that many keep forgetting.
- ripdog 7y ago
  Read upthread. This change was always promised to the buyers of the cheap model 3 on purchase, as the software to restrict these features was not complete then. It is now, and is being applied.
m0zg 7y ago
They should offer the steering column as an additional, beautifully machined $999 option. The clientele will understand.
fencepost 7y ago
WTF is Engadget doing these days with ads? Attempting to go to the site in Firefox with uMatrix gets me an immediate redirect to "https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers" https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers" with a session ID attached.
LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
There will be a tesla pirat and tweaker scenen in 10 days.
Animats 7y ago
Tesla promised a $35K car, and took orders for it. But they can't make one that sells profitably at that price. They really, really don't want buyers ordering the base model.
- sliken 7y ago
  No car manufacturer does. It's much like going to a fast food place and ordering just a hamburger. The profit on the burger is very low, but the profit on french fries and soda is sky high. So the fast food places push the meal bundles. Because of the profit on options is sky high (often a few $$$ of materials can cost $1000s), it's getting increasingly common that a cars options can substantially increase the cost of a car. Luxury cars have been feeding this cycle and it's actually refreshing that Tesla has so few options. BMW drove me crazy with an incredible and quite complicated system with numerous incompatibilities designed to upsell you. Things like the tires/wheels being linked to the steering wheel upgrade, which is linked to the performance seats, etc. What was maddening that features on lower end cars (like power lift gate, bluetooth, and decent headlights) are many $1,000s in a luxury vehicle. NHTSA recently blasted various luxury car makers for lousy headlights unless you upgraded to the $$$ version. Amusingly the top stock headlight they tested was from a Toyota Prius! Quite a few luxury cars were rated poor for headlights. Similarly to other car markers, the Tesla model 3 base model has very low profit. But if you buy the higher models a large part of the price difference is profit. So the $35k Tesla only made sense if most buyers actually got the $40k model (or higher). So many picked the $40k model, that tesla decided to not make the $35k model and just software restricted the $35k model.
xedarius 7y ago
Queue the market for Tesla hack garages where all upgrades can be turned on for £100.
rbrbr 7y ago
That’s all so ridiculous. I mean people buying those cars know what they are buying in to. I would never support such practices. I do understand if an engine is throttled to increase its life time. Apple does it with the cpus in their computers. But just omitting a feature for the sake of selling it additionally is a ridiculous business practice nobody should support.
asjo 7y ago
This is similar to Windows licensing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Comparison_chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Comparison...), where "Windows 10 Home" allows you to use 128 GB of RAM, while the various "Pro" versions allows up to 2 TB, and "Enterprise" up to 6 TB. The limits used to be lower - I seem to remember laughing out loud at a Stack Overflow podcast, where they talked about having to purchase a new Windows license to be able to expand the RAM of a server.
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  It likely took some work in the OS to support the larger RAM... grow some data structures, tune caches and heap managers, test on new hardware. Yes it's price segmentation but it's not totally arbitrary.
  - asjo 7y ago
    Well, you bought a new license and they the RAM was used. No installation of anything but the license. At least that's how I remember the podcast explaining it.
projectileboy 7y ago
Seems like a dumb move. This affects a (relatively) small enough number of customers that had they just let it slide, the public at large would not have noticed. This isn’t that bad of a news story in the grand scheme of things, but at this point I don’t think Tesla can afford any bad press, at all.
segmondy 7y ago
I have always coveted a Telsa and waiting for the right time, but this behavior is the precise reason why I'm cancelling them out. I know they are desperate for cash, but this is truly terrible.
- MattRix 7y ago
  Are you sure you understand the situation? The buyers knew up front that this was just a trial, there's nothing underhanded here.
  - segmondy 7y ago
    I do understand the situation, it's not about what the buyers know, but the fact that the car actually has features disabled by software. Why in the world will you reduce range with software? I can understand if different models have different range because of different battery capacity. Make no mistake, this will be hacked, it's only a matter of time. Occasionally we see software about John Derre and how they use software to limit what can be done to their tractors. We all agree and talk about how evil that is. Tesla doing the same thing is pure evil.

104 points by mbreese 7y ago

> Customers might also lose access to Tesla's onboard music streaming service and heated seats, among other upgrades, though they'll have to wait until the software lock comes out to know which ones they're losing for sure. Heated seats disabled in software?!

toomuchtodo 7y ago
My goodness! Next you’ll tell me you’re paying more for more GHz from the same processor just because of QA/bin sorting! /s Anyway, price differentiation without a hardware delta is how you meet your margin forecasts. Legitimate business strategy.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Perhaps anyway.
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  That's a poor analogy; when you pay more for a processor that's more highly binned, you are actually getting something physically superior. Tesla bins their motors (or did at one point). If you're going to do the sarcastic reply thing, at least make it insightful. Or funny.
  - tntn 7y ago
    > actually getting something physically superior Sometimes, sometimes not. What you are getting is a chip that passed more rigorous tests. That the lower end products have (or would have) failed those tests is not guaranteed. Companies can and do sell identical silicon as less capable products.
    - reitzensteinm 7y ago
      Yes, sometimes the yields are too good and there are an overabundance of chips that can be sold as high end. Pentiums with cache defects are sold as Celerons, but in a pinch, a Pentium might be sold as a Celeron. Intel at one stage dipped their toes in the water of what would be a close analogy; your chip comes with half of its cache software disabled, and you pay $50 to unlock it. They stopped pretty quickly, but I don't think it was from the inevitable tech community backlash. It was that it economically made no sense at Intel's scale - the alternative was to fab a new line of chips with less cache to start with. https://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/ https://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50...
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    Swap the analogy around. A cpu manufacturer develops a quadcore cpu then sells it for $1k but also sells a 2core cpu with 2 fully functional cores disabled for $500. This is a valid business strategy. One could imagine them offering the 2-core buyers a limited trial of the 4-core version to try to upsell them on a 4-core. That’s what Tesla did.
    - reitzensteinm 7y ago
      You could imagine it, but that's not what actually happens! There are cases where a higher spec product is sold as a lower spec in the CPU world, but there are no lasting situations where every single lower spec product could have been sold as higher. For the analogy to fit, that would have to be the situation. It's not. I'm not arguing that Tesla is doing anything wrong, just that you can't point to CPUs to justify it.
      - reitzensteinm 7y ago
        If you or anyone else reading this doubts what I'm saying, the statistics are plain as day on Silicon Lottery. Most SKUs can be overclocked, but there is no case where a higher binning isn't superior. https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
      - alkonaut 7y ago
        I'm not saying it happens a lot. Or that it ever happened in a sustainable way for CPU's. I'm saying it's a valid business strategy that can happen and does happen for many many products. The CPU was just an analogy I thought would be working for this particular site. It may be that the best actually occurring example is tooth brushes or bicycles, I don't know.
        reitzensteinm 7y ago
        Parent was pointing to a real world analogous situation which we don't get upset about, and accusing OP of hypocrisy. But it was a flawed argument, because CPU binning is not at all like Tesla software limiting battery packs. It's totally valid to be upset about one but not the other (personally I'm fine with both). You coming up with any sort of theoretical scenario to continue the analogy doesn't counter my argument or boost theirs. We don't need help understanding what Tesla is doing.
Whatarethese 7y ago
I got 5% more power on in a software update. Pretty awesome.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  Doesn't help much with the 10% reduced range.
userbinator 7y ago
What's next, seats and doors disabled in software? "The car has detected someone sitting in the passenger seat, but you haven't paid for that option, so the car will refuse to move." or "the rear doors cannot be opened, because you've only paid for the front door." WTF.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  Well, how big is the discount for single riders?

skunkworker 7y ago

The title feels like partially clickbait, customers who paid for the standard range have been getting the extended range for free and soon this will be software locked. "Your Model 3 will soon receive new software that matches the Model 3 Standard Range configuration you ordered. As we communicated in April, this includes a limited range of 220 miles, and the removal of several software features. To continue experiencing the extended range, faster acceleration and Autopilot features of Model Standard Range Plus, schedule a service appointment through your Tesla app."

pdxww 7y ago
Regardless, this is a bad PR and they are losing potential customers. No one wants their car to be trimmed down just because the manufactures chose so. No, it doesn't matter what's written in the fine print.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

RyanShook 7y ago

No better way to alienate customers than make them pay for features they already had access to.

Whatarethese 7y ago
But they got features they didn't pay for in the first place?
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  In terms of UX, I'd argue shipping the cars software locked in the first place would have been strictly superior to shipping SR+ and downgrading it after the fact. The rational part of your brain understands why, but I think some pretty fundamental loss aversion emotions kick in when a product you own is downgraded, even if you chose not to pay for the extra features. Of course, that may be exactly what Tesla is banking on, considering you can just get your credit card out to get it back. I wouldn't be surprised if future SR models come with a one month trial even now the downgrade has been developed. Parent has a point, IMO, and your reply doesn't really address it.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
    They needed some time to implement the software locking. So it was a choice between delaying delivery by a few weeks vs delivering with extra features and turning them off later.

gmueckl 7y ago

So the trial period for the full version is over. Enjoy the features included in the standard license. I get market segmentation and having optional features in a car. But most car companies don't actually integrate a seat heater if you didn't order one. Lugging the weight of the extra hardware for these features around but being blocked from using them at all feels wromg to me.

sliken 7y ago
I can't talk percentages. But it's pretty common for most of the parts needed for an optional feature to be included. Things like wiring harneses for optional subwoofers, foglights, etc. Heating pads start around $15.00 on amazon, seems easy to believe it's cheaper to make only seats with heating integrated instead of making two part numbers, doubling the overhead for seat inventory, make the assembly line more complex, making the order system more complex, documentation, testing, doubling the overhead for car inventory, handling additional order complexity etc.
- SN76477 7y ago
  for all we know Tesla want to make on demand style manufacturing of vehicles possible.
  - koala_man 7y ago
    Car micropayments? "Don't freeze your butt off! Get an hour of warm seats for just $1.99"
    - AtHeartEngineer 7y ago
      This is really intriguing to think about, black mirror season 6? (Haven't watched 5 yet, no spoilers)
      - dx7tnt 7y ago
        Spoiler alert: compared to the other seasons, these ones are pretty crap and unengaging.

gumby 7y ago

This reminds me of IBM which would rent the same hardware and then charge you for "performance upgrades" which were typically provided as jumpers.

colanderman 7y ago
That the hardware was rented makes the practice feel less egregious to me. You are after all essentially paying for a service when renting. But paying someone to unlock physical functionality of a device which you own… that feels like crossing the line toed by IBM's practice (and that of others mentioned in comments such as Intel).

wanderer2323 7y ago

Feels really weird. These are the earliest customers for Model 3, wouldn't it be good & cheap PR for Tesla to say "these customers got more than they paid for, but we'll 'grandfather' them into the perks"? I would expect the positive EV (expected value) on the 'grandfather' option to be obvious, unless Tesla is really strapped for cash.

sliken 7y ago
These are not the earliest customers of the model 3. These are the ones that waited an extra year or so for the cheapest model. They were informed about the features they would get, but ended up with free, but temporary upgrades.
- p1esk 7y ago
  Did the earliest customer get something that others didn't? But yeah, Tesla is tight on cash these days...
  - sliken 7y ago
    Yes, free supercharging for one. But as Tesla matures and starts entering markets with lower profit margins, things need to be more cost efficient. I don't think of Tesla being hard on cash, just that they are pouring every $ they have into expansion. They could just slow down and being profitable would be much easier. Personally I'd slow growth and take out less loans, but they would slow down the transformation of the automobile industry from ICE to electric. It does seem to be working, with the competition continuing to claims "You can't make a competitive electric car", then "you can't make a competitive luxury sedan", then "you can't make a small sedan at a lower price point". Now pretty much the entire industry is chasing Tesla. Sure now there's some competition from Chevy (the bolt), Jaguar (the i-pace), Audi (e-tron), Mercedes, Porsche, and many others. None particularly competitive... yet. Even if Tesla implodes tomorrow, they have pushed the market to an amazing degree. Personally I'm most impressed with the model 3 performance. Small, fun, fast, tons of storage room, very efficient, and often wins against a BMW M3, not just at 0-60 (a strong point of electric cars), but also on the track. Electric cars get rid of pretty much all the compromises of a sports sedan. No loss of storage space with the transmission hump that divides the car in two. No increased friction and substantial weight increase for AWD. No huge hood to contain a large engine. No terrible gas mpg. Low center of gravity means no punishing suspension to try to keep the car from rolling in the corners. No loud noises from performance oriented tires, engines, and exhausts. Basically you can get a practical every day driver that matches the best BMW on the track.

m463 7y ago

The question I have is: Were these features accidentally turned on, or were they on "free trial"? I drove a rental model s once, and it had the autopilot features turned on like navigate on autopilot, but there was a warning "Trial period ends in 23 days" or something like that.

kjksf 7y ago
Neither. Tesla sold those cars before they finished the software that enforces the limits. From now on this will be in the car from the beginning.

zaroth 7y ago

I’m blanking on the term d’art, but I see this similar to the common practice of blocking out features in an MVP where you let users click on things that aren’t implemented yet in order to measure which features you should actually go and build next. It’s a neat way to quickly get real-world data on what people will pay for and what features they want. The alternative would have been waiting to ship these customers their new cars until the software was ready. Shipping it early with the explicit notice that eventually the software will arrive which will limit access properly is a win-win for everyone. Customers get their new car sooner, they get free access to a bunch of features they didn’t pay for, and the option to upgrade is always there if they do want it in the future. Clearly these owners are getting a software upgrade, which is implementing new software checks to provide the correct functionality as ordered based on their SKU. In my past company we also shipped features to customers without all the software limits enforced in firmware in order to get the build out to the field. I imagine it’s a fairly common practice, as we tend to code those features last, as nothing depends on them, and you can always ship without them when the sales guy is selling based on the price sheet, not whether the software actually implements the check. As long as customers don’t start to believe the check will never actually ship, the bug sat Unassigned.

Deimorz 7y ago
> I’m blanking on the term d’art, but I see this similar to the common practice of blocking out features in an MVP where you let users click on things that aren’t implemented yet in order to measure which features you should actually go and build next. I've seen that called "fake door" or "painted door" tests.
throwaway2048 7y ago
>Clearly these owners are getting a software upgrade, which is implementing new software checks to provide the correct functionality as ordered based on their SKU. that is some pretty absurd spin
- zaroth 7y ago
  Hardly; it precisely describes what is occurring. Calling it a downgrade seems to me to be the absurd spin. It's clearly not a downgrade, as the feature checks weren't even implemented in the previous versions. I understand what the headline is trying to say, but it's a total misnomer to call it a downgrade.

bgorman 7y ago

How can the extended range be controlled by a software feature? For me it is seems deeply unethical to limit the how long a mechanical device can operate via software. Imagine a printer that had a software limit of only printing 5 pages at a time.

tntn 7y ago
What do you find deeply unethical about it? I don't care how it's implemented - if it works as advertised and I decide to buy it for a given cost, seems like an ok deal. Said printer would not be good, I would not buy it. EDIT: FWIW, there is a metric ton of software and firmware that is crucial to achieve the advertised range. So if it makes you feel better you can think of it as not the mechanical product operating differently, just the software product.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  It’s at the very least unethical in the environmental sense of wasting natural resources on physical objects that can’t be used and are wasted because of contractual terms. It’s also unethical if you believe in a “right to repair” because it creates financial incentives for the enforcement of laws and contracts that make “right to repair” impossible.
  - jzoch 7y ago
    keeping "repair" well-scoped is important in maintaining the right and saying Tesla is in the wrong here seems silly. You aren't repairing your car if you enable features you didnt pay for. You should gladly by this product thats artificially limited since the cost to enable that new feature is theoretically lower and faster with less chance of things going wrong. They are able to offer you a better product with more price points by engaging in software-gating. If they did not do this it would be difficult to maintain so many different SKU's and youd wait longer to get your car. Servicing it would be more work and youd be less satisfied.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago

userbinator 7y ago

How long until someone finds a hack...? This is one of the reasons I really don't like "software defined cars"... that you don't really own.

SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
If you brick a car and you can't convince Tesla that you were doing legitimate security research, they will refuse to reflash it. That's if they don't effectively brick it for you by blocking your VIN from getting parts and firmware updates when a future update detects unexpected features being used. Hacking these cars is an expensive and risky endeavor compared to just coughing up the money for the extra features.
- p1esk 7y ago
  But this is hacker news, isn't it? What you said is equally true about the iphone, yet people did hack it...
  - userbinator 7y ago
    There are also apparently farmers hacking the firmware on their equipment, which costs many times more than the most expensive Tesla: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994 No one who hacks expects the manufacturer to help or even agree.
    - oska 7y ago
      I'm sympathetic to farmers who hack their John Deere tractors which they only use on private land. I'm much less sympathetic to people who hack the software of cars they drive on public roads.
      - whenchamenia 7y ago
        All my 7 cars are hacked. Sorry you feel that way.

dhuramas 7y ago

Lots of hate in the comments- but I feel this is a good thing. I think of it as my free trial to JetBrains IDE expiring - yeah it sucks. But I got what I paid for(or didn't pay for)- and it was good while it lasted. Besides they had a clear communication about the matter- it's not as if the customers had the rug pulled off their feet. They have been informed well in advance.

Urgo 7y ago

Really not sure why everyone is up in arms over this. The person buying the car knows exactly what they are buying when they order it. They just got some upgrades for free that they didn't pay for to try for a little bit. I think its great that Tesla includes them and is able to unlock them via software. The alternative is if you bought the low end car and later decided to upgrade you'd have to bring your car in, they'd have to tear apart seats/etc to upgrade the hardware, remove an old battery to put in a new one, etc. The system as it stands now may seem a little weird that you actually have hardware you didn't pay for but it's not unlike upgrading to get more features on some other service. The fact of the matter again is the people who bought the cars after this update will get exactly what they paid for. If they want the upgraded version they could have either bought it from the start, or they can still upgrade.

Krasnol 7y ago
It just feels bad. The comments reflect that and there will be more in the future. It'll make the company look like some game company that sells DLC. It's bad marketing.
- Urgo 7y ago
  It only feels bad because you (not saying you, but you know what I mean) thought you were getting away with getting something for free you didn't pay for and it's being taken back.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    Nah, it feels back because you had something that will be taken away from you. They shouldn't have given it to the people in the first place.
    - Urgo 7y ago
      I'm with you on that. Ideally it shouldn't have been given at all. I just don't see any issue with Tesla updating things to match what the customer paid for. And again, the Tesla website is super easy to use and they detail everything. You know EXACTLY what you are ordering when you order it. I may be bummed if I got some free extras if I was one of these customers but I'd be totally fine if the extras went away since I hadn't paid for them. I'm wondering if when the customers were handed the keys though if Tesla let them know about this "free trial" of sorts.

kjksf 7y ago

This wasn't Tesla's plan from the beginning. This is the history of how that happened. In 2016 Tesla announced Model 3 and took a risk by pre-announcing that the price will start at $35. In late 2017 they started making the cars and until early 2019 they were only making the more expensive Long Range trim at $50k+. Sometime late 2018 / early 2019 they introduced a Medium Range trim, which was Long Range with smaller batter for $40-something k. This trim is no longer available (replaced by SR+) Around march 2019, after hard-core cost-cutting, they introduced the base models as $35 SR (Standard Range) and $37.5 SR+ (Standard Range plus). Compared to original plans SR/SR+ was better in that it included the panoramic glass sunroof. The SR+ was available immediately but SR had a 4-6 month lead time, presumably so that Tesla can improve production / operational efficiency enough so that they can make SR trim at a profit. According to Tesla, few people were ordering SR so they decided to scrap that trim. That makes sense because the fewer variants they have to make, the better they can optimize the production process and the cheaper it is to make the cars. To fulfill those SR orders they decided to give people SR+ trim and limit features in software. It took them a while to implement those limits hence for a while people who ordered SR were able to drive SR+ without the limits. This is not the end of story. Soon after they decided to make $3k AutoPilot a standard feature and bumped the price by $2k. After that they bumped the price by additional $400, presumably to offset the cost of Trump's tarrifs. And that's where we are today. Tesla just rolls with the punches. Making the cheapest version be a software-limited wasn't the original plan but it's a reasonable decision given how things progressed. I think it's safe to say that at some point in the future Tesla will lower the price if their production capacity outstrips the supply and they manage to further improve operational efficiency.

patrick5415 7y ago
Honestly, nobody(except the fanbois) cares about the story or Tesla’s original intention. All that matters is what they are actually doing. And what they’re actually doing is skeevy.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Reading the parent makes it sound exceptionally skeevy. I tend to distrust a company that will spend money to make sure that their customers 'don't get something for free' when the cost is already sunk.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dheera 7y ago

How is range determined by software? Isn't that purely a function of how many amp hours of battery you have?

rcw4256 7y ago
It's artificially capped in software.
- dheera 7y ago
  That's just wrong. If you own a physical resource, such as a lithium battery, you should be able to use it to its full potential. If they want to sell lower-range cars they should just load them with smaller batteries, and have the upgrade be the battery pack, not the software. Gas cars don't do that. Whatever gas you put in, you can use. These kind of shenanigans only make people love gas cars more, which is honestly not in Tesla's best interest if they want to increase adoption.
  - aetherspawn 7y ago
    One reason they may have done this is because there was a time when they were looking at battery swapping. Standard batteries (with just software limiting) between all M3s would make this logistically so much easier.
    - dheera 7y ago
      Logistically fine, but if it makes financial sense to even manufacture and ship full sized batteries to everyone, you might as well let people use them. Otherwise it's purely wasteful, which contradicts their first principles of existence as a company to have unused and will-never-be-used lithium cells being trucked around by thousands of cars the country. Software upgrades should only provide better software, not unlock precious resources that would otherwise be wasted. Also, writing software to deliberately cripple hardware is counterproductive to advancement of technology. It also highly incentivizes people to reverse engineer your system, hack your system, unsubscribe themselves from updates, and IMO they have every right to do so. It would be in your best interest to NOT incentivize this type of behavior. If I buy 5 batteries from you, you have no right to walk into my house, install a safe, and lock up 1 of them for a ransom, which is exactly what they are doing. It's childish at best and unethical at worst. If you did that, I will destroy the safe and recover the 5th battery. It's my property that I purchased and I have the right to use it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

notaki 7y ago

However you feel about it, the bigger point is that none of big auto could do this even if they wanted to

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dehrmann 7y ago

This is a case where Tesla would be better off owning up to its failures. They shipped a product slightly better than customers ordered. That's on them, especially when they're doing the downgrade a year+ later. Imagine if a dealership came back after a year and told you "actually, you didn't pay for the package with the heated seats." Not sure what Tesla PR was thinking on this one, especially when the cost (but not opportunity cost) is $10 per month for the music. All I've got is that Tesla's looking between the cushions for cash.

drusepth 7y ago
If I didn't pay for it, I'd pretty much just think, "Dang, that was nice while I had it." The biggest downside would be having to take your car into wherever they'd remove the heated seats at. Being able to negate that inconvenience entirely with a software update brings me back to "oh man, that was nice while I had it. I guess I don't anymore."
disillusioned 7y ago
How would this be different from, say, a SaaS tool provider realizing I was being charged for their "basic" plan I signed up for, while inadvertently receiving their "premium" plan, and emailing me to inform me they've noticed the error and are correcting it?
- dehrmann 7y ago
  The main difference is the sense of possession you get with something you paid a one-time fee for. The -aaS model is a fee for service model, so you expect to be billed accordingly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

CriticalCathed 7y ago

This is the first thing I've seen Tesla do that was shitty with regard to customers. Tarnishes their image. Something about selling someone a car with all of the physical hardware required for something and then locking it out sometime after the sale using software seriously bothers me. Who owns the car, really? Is it Tesla or is it me? Stupid move. They stand to gain almost no money from this. I may be ignorant about Tesla's business practices if there's worse. I also own a Model S not a 3.

sudhirj 7y ago
It's unfair not to do it - there are customers who paid extra for the upgrade, it's not fair to give it to everyone for free, but a trial period seems reasonable.
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  The thing is it was not a trial period. There already exists trial periods in Tesla vehicles. They're explicit and give you time remaining. You know exactly what is happening. Instead, what happened is Tesla couldn't provide the configuration of cars that people wanted because it wasn't economical for them to do so. So instead they sent them another model of the vehicle with different hardware. It was a stop gap solution. It appears that many people were unaware either by their own lack of attention, or because they were mislead, or because Tesla didn't make it clear enough what was happening. So: 1. Tesla offered to sell a product. 2. People bought the product. 3. Tesla realized it was not economical to sell the product. 4. Tesla decided not to manufacture the product that they offered. 5. Tesla gave the customers a different product in order to retain the sale rather than cancel the orders. (Even to the degree that the sales documentation refers to the product as SR+ and not SR.) 6. Months pass. 7. Tesla develops software that will after-the-fact modify the product that customers were provided. Tesla is part and parcel of the problem here. This "it's not fair" rings hollow to me.
  - sliken 7y ago
    Tesla could have made customers wait, cancel the product, and upsell them.... which would be quite unpopular. Instead they told users, we can sell you a better car today, but then at some point it will behave just like the car you ordered. Seems less than idea, but seems like Tesla made the best of the situation. The problem is they brought out two cars at $35k and $40k and tried to predict how many people would take both options. Turns out way more people took the nav, traffic, streaming audio, better range/battery etc. So much so that it wasn't worth making a custom car for the few people that bought the $35k model. So instead of cancelling orders they decided to software limit the $35k car, and people got what they ordered with a bonus till the software got updated.

steelframe 7y ago

For those who haven't had a chance to read it yet, Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read" from 1997: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html There are some striking thematic parallels with the current state of automotive technology -- in particular Tesla.

userbinator 7y ago
Cory Doctorow's "Car Wars" is also very relevant: http://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/car-wars http://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/car-wars
googlemike 7y ago
Stallman is a cooky old loon.
- prepend 7y ago
  This is an unusual comment and raised my Sunday morning curiosity. Was he a loon in 1997 when the linked to article was published? Do you post this comment any time Stallman is mentioned? If so, are there others on your autoinsult list? Or is there a particular reason it’s important here to insult Stallman?

yarg 7y ago

I'm not sure how this will go down in America, but in New Zealand at least I believe that this will breach the Consumer Guarantees Act. Edit: there's a clause in the act that says once the buyer owns the product, they own the product. I believe that this change would breach that clause. I believe that the Model 3 has not yet shipped - so this isn't a retroactive downgrade, and the act might not apply.

drusepth 7y ago
How would Teslas get any updates in New Zealand if updates breach CGA?
- netsharc 7y ago
  Presumably software updates that improve stuff/add features are allowed, but not if they make things worse. E.g. VW is being sued in Germany because their "removed dieselgate software" update makes fuel economy worse than advertised. It might fix the emissions to as advertised, but the owners aren't getting better emissions as promised, because the promise was a lie. If that is the case for NZ Teslas, a cute hack would be to trick the car to think it is in New Zealand. Calling the Ukrainian hackers... (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farme...)
  - yarg 7y ago
    Good luck doing that without breaking mapping.

sudhirj 7y ago

There was a tweet by pg that Tesla is really a software company - that seems to be playing out more and more. They're basically making the car hardware only for sake of vertical integration, same as with Apple's phones. Both companies are also developing chips for the same reasons, with the same revolving door of employees as well. If this perspective normalizes it's quite possible that we'll see cars that offer in-app upgrades / features on subscription as well. You could rent extended range for just your trips, and Tesla has already been known to temporarily enable it for everyone in the case of emergencies.

carlmr 7y ago
Putting unnecessary hardware in cars may be costly, which is why traditional car companies don't do this, or at least rarely do this. At the same time Tesla doesn't produce enough cars to make it worthwhile to make the production process that flexible. There are costs associated with having different parts to manage and streamlining your assembly line to handle it. Additionally you have to develop, test, produce these additional parts which also costs money. If they become one of the big car manufacturers at some point it will become worth it to specialize the hardware more. Right now software is easier and cheaper.

lasky 7y ago

happily driving my gas guzzling “on-prem, perpetually licensed source” model of ownership instead of dealing with that bs.

brianobush 7y ago

So you have seat heating elements, but software has disabled them? Nice. Feels like a multi-core processor with half of the processors disabled.

prepend 7y ago

I recently bought a car and seriously considered a Tesla, but ended up buying another. At first my thinking was about the support costs and maintenance (cheaper service vs absurdly expensive accident repairs), but what did it for me was this kind of stuff. Shipping a car with heated seats but only enabling them if they are paid for is very annoying. And not allowing me to write software for my own car is annoying. I’ve always disliked DLC and seeing it move into other areas turns me off. Lots of people don’t mind this, but I think it’s unethical to ship hardware that is enabled by software that is forbidden for the owner to modify.

aetherspawn 7y ago
What other brand of car can you write software for?
- prepend 7y ago
  Twenty years ago I was writing EEPROM stuff for my civic to increase hp. I don’t know any car with an SDK, but most cars sold allow aftermarket software changes.
  - aetherspawn 7y ago
    Right, but if you broke it then Honda wouldn’t reflash it for free. And they don’t give you EEPROM flashing cables and SDK documentation. So is there really a tangible difference? I’d be surprised if Honda provided you with anything beyond what Tesla provides (ie nothing).
    - prepend 7y ago
      You kept the original eeprom and put it back in for service. This is not possible in a Tesla because of the way they designed connectivity. I’m not asking for an SDK and official support, I’m just asking for it to be allowed. Tesla actively prevents this, Honda doesn’t.
todd3834 7y ago

gnicholas 7y ago

If they can remove the feature via an OTA update, why do you have to go into a service station to get the features back?

Urgo 7y ago
Guessing its due to the features of the car being locked into some part of memory that can not be updated over the air and bringing it in will allow them to update it so future OTA updates will give the correct update. Basically change the car's version from being a M3 SR to M3 SR+

telltruth 7y ago

Tesla seems to be desperate for cash flow, any cash flow. First they shutdown stores and now they are trying to squeeze out existing customers. Looks like Musk called meeting with top leaders and charged them to find any way whatsoever to get extra cash.

x38iq84n 7y ago
Yeah, cash flow is a bitch that does not care about market cap or stock price. Something that many keep forgetting.
ripdog 7y ago
Read upthread. This change was always promised to the buyers of the cheap model 3 on purchase, as the software to restrict these features was not complete then. It is now, and is being applied.

m0zg 7y ago

They should offer the steering column as an additional, beautifully machined $999 option. The clientele will understand.

fencepost 7y ago

WTF is Engadget doing these days with ads? Attempting to go to the site in Firefox with uMatrix gets me an immediate redirect to "https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers" https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers" with a session ID attached.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago

There will be a tesla pirat and tweaker scenen in 10 days.

Animats 7y ago

Tesla promised a $35K car, and took orders for it. But they can't make one that sells profitably at that price. They really, really don't want buyers ordering the base model.

sliken 7y ago
No car manufacturer does. It's much like going to a fast food place and ordering just a hamburger. The profit on the burger is very low, but the profit on french fries and soda is sky high. So the fast food places push the meal bundles. Because of the profit on options is sky high (often a few $$$ of materials can cost $1000s), it's getting increasingly common that a cars options can substantially increase the cost of a car. Luxury cars have been feeding this cycle and it's actually refreshing that Tesla has so few options. BMW drove me crazy with an incredible and quite complicated system with numerous incompatibilities designed to upsell you. Things like the tires/wheels being linked to the steering wheel upgrade, which is linked to the performance seats, etc. What was maddening that features on lower end cars (like power lift gate, bluetooth, and decent headlights) are many $1,000s in a luxury vehicle. NHTSA recently blasted various luxury car makers for lousy headlights unless you upgraded to the $$$ version. Amusingly the top stock headlight they tested was from a Toyota Prius! Quite a few luxury cars were rated poor for headlights. Similarly to other car markers, the Tesla model 3 base model has very low profit. But if you buy the higher models a large part of the price difference is profit. So the $35k Tesla only made sense if most buyers actually got the $40k model (or higher). So many picked the $40k model, that tesla decided to not make the $35k model and just software restricted the $35k model.

xedarius 7y ago

Queue the market for Tesla hack garages where all upgrades can be turned on for £100.

rbrbr 7y ago

That’s all so ridiculous. I mean people buying those cars know what they are buying in to. I would never support such practices. I do understand if an engine is throttled to increase its life time. Apple does it with the cpus in their computers. But just omitting a feature for the sake of selling it additionally is a ridiculous business practice nobody should support.

asjo 7y ago

This is similar to Windows licensing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Comparison_chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Comparison...), where "Windows 10 Home" allows you to use 128 GB of RAM, while the various "Pro" versions allows up to 2 TB, and "Enterprise" up to 6 TB. The limits used to be lower - I seem to remember laughing out loud at a Stack Overflow podcast, where they talked about having to purchase a new Windows license to be able to expand the RAM of a server.

cheerlessbog 7y ago
It likely took some work in the OS to support the larger RAM... grow some data structures, tune caches and heap managers, test on new hardware. Yes it's price segmentation but it's not totally arbitrary.
- asjo 7y ago
  Well, you bought a new license and they the RAM was used. No installation of anything but the license. At least that's how I remember the podcast explaining it.

projectileboy 7y ago

Seems like a dumb move. This affects a (relatively) small enough number of customers that had they just let it slide, the public at large would not have noticed. This isn’t that bad of a news story in the grand scheme of things, but at this point I don’t think Tesla can afford any bad press, at all.

segmondy 7y ago

I have always coveted a Telsa and waiting for the right time, but this behavior is the precise reason why I'm cancelling them out. I know they are desperate for cash, but this is truly terrible.

MattRix 7y ago
Are you sure you understand the situation? The buyers knew up front that this was just a trial, there's nothing underhanded here.
- segmondy 7y ago
  I do understand the situation, it's not about what the buyers know, but the fact that the car actually has features disabled by software. Why in the world will you reduce range with software? I can understand if different models have different range because of different battery capacity. Make no mistake, this will be hacked, it's only a matter of time. Occasionally we see software about John Derre and how they use software to limit what can be done to their tractors. We all agree and talk about how evil that is. Tesla doing the same thing is pure evil.